Here are some revelations: “…avendo fatto il suo testamento l’anno adietro del MCCCXXVII alli 20. di Dicembre, in Lucca…ma sentendosi mancare, & essere sopra fatto della gravezza del male; & avendo discorso con li suoi Segretarij, & dati molti ordini; fece chiamare à se la Duchessa sua moglie, M. Nicolo Castracani Antelminelli, Principal Vegli, Duccio Sandei, & F. Lazaro, Priore di Altopascio; & lasciolli nel testamento tutori, con Enrico, Valevano, Giovanni & Verde, suoi figliuoli; a’ quali con volto intrepido diede la benedizione paterna e l’ultimo bacio” ( …having made his testament the year before, MCCCXXVII on December 20th in Lucca,…but feeling lacking & being above the fact of the gravity of his illness, he spoke with his secretaries, giving them lots of orders; he desired to see his wife, the Duchess, M. Nicolo Castracani Antelminelli, Principal Vegli, Duke Sandei, & F. Lazaro, Prior of Altopascio & executor of the will, and Enrico, Valevano, Giovanni & Verde, his sons, to whom he gave with intrepid face the paternal benediction and a last kiss) (p. 95). Castruccio expired on 23th September 1328 at the age of XLVII, five months, & five days” (p. 97). Giovanni died still young in 1343 and he was buried in Pisa, near his mother in St. Francis Church (figure 2 - Giovanni Castracani's tombstone / figure 3 - Coat of Arms of the Castracani Family on the tombstone): “In the same temple Giovanni, son of Castruccio, is buried, a knight and important man in many battles. His upper body is sculpted, armed, and dressed in Chivalric clothes, with the emblem of his family: & the inscription said: “Virtutis exemplum. momentaneo iuventutis flore clarescens, praematurae mortis in cursu praeventus, tegor hac in petra Ioannes, natus olim Illustris Domini Castruccij, Lucani Ducis, altissimae mentis, indelendae memoriae, libertatis patriae defensoris, hostibus semper invicti. Anno MCCCXLIII. Die XIJ.Maj”. (Exemplar of virtue. While I got fame in the flower of youth, anticipating the path of premature death, I lie covered by this stone, me, Giovanni, son of the famous lord Castruccio, Duke of Lucca, of the highest intelligence, of indestructible memory, defender of the homeland, never defeated by the enemy. 14th May 1343) (p. 107). It is clear, based on the inscription under the painting, that Francesco wasn’t Giovanni’s son, because he was born 17 years after his death.

Like his brothers, Giovanni was a Prince of many Tuscan cities, and in particular Prince of Pietra Santa and Monteggiori, thanks to a charter given by the Emperor Lodovico the Bavarian, who “Volendo poi finger alcuna dimostratione di benevolenza e, meschiarla alla grande ingratitudine, confermò alli 10. di Aprile alla Duchessa, moglie di Castruccio, le entrate, che gli aveva lasciate il marito; e diedegli libera podestà, & dominio sopra il castello di Monteggiori, & suo distretto come Patrimonio, con tutte le ville nel Contado, & terre sopra Pietrasanta; assegnando quattromila Fiorini d’oro l’anno sopra esse Vicaria, a lei & à figliuoli, & e loro discendenti. & alli 17. di dicembre fece due Privilegi à quella Signora, à Valerano, e Giovanni predetti, confermandoli Signori di Monteggiori, & loro successori, con la istessa entrata” (Wanting to demonstrate benevolence, mingled with great ingratitude, on 10th April granted, to the Duchess, wife of Castruccio, all the real estate left by her husband; gave her free power & dominion over Monteggiori Castle and all the towns in Contado and the lands above Pietrasanta; assigning four thousand gold florins per year on this Vicarage, to her, her sons and their descendants; making on 17th December, two charters to the Duchess, and to the aforesaid Valerano and Giovanni, confirming them and their successors as Lords of Monteggiori, with the same income) (p. 105). Manucci has the whole text of this charter in his work, as well as the Castruccio will.

So, who was this Francesco in the painting? Manucci, and also other documents and family trees referring to this family (figure 4), said that he was born of Orlando, son of Enrico, first-born of Castruccio Castracani. From Manucci we discover that Enrico, Giovanni’s brother, had a son named Orlando, who had four other sons, Castruccio, Enrico, Francesco and Rolando.

Prince Fibbia was born 1360 as a grandson of the oldest son Enrico of the condottiero Nicolo Castracani Antelminelli, and died 1419.

CASTRUCCIO CASTRACANI DEGLI ANTELMINELLI (1281 1328), Duke of Lucca, was by birth a Lucchese, and by descent and training a Ghibelline. Being exiled at an early age with his parents and others of their faction by the Guelphs, then in the ascendant, and orphaned at nineteen, he served as a condottiere under Philip of France in Flanders, later with the Visconti in Lombardy, and in 1313 under the Ghibelline chief, Uguccione della Faggiuola, lord of Pisa, in central Italy. He assisted Uguccione in many enterprises, including the capture of Lucca (1314) and the victory over the Florentines at Montecatini (1315). An insurrection of the Lucchese having led to the expulsion of Uguccione and his party, Castruccio regained his freedom and his position, and the Ghibelline triumph was presently assured. Elected lord of Lucca in 1316, he warred incessantly against the Florentines, and was at first the faithful adviser and staunch supporter of Frederick of Austria, who made him imperial vicar of Lucca in 1320. After the battle of Muhlbach he went over to the emperor Louis the Bavarian, whom he served for many years. In 1325 he defeated the Florentines at Altopascio, and was appointed by the emperor duke of Lucca, Pistoia, Volterra and Luni, and two years later he captured Pisa, of which he was made imperial vicar. But, subsequently, his relations with Louis seem to have grown less friendly and he was afterwards excommunicated by the papal legate in the interests of the Guelphs. At his death in 1328 the fortunes of his young children were wrecked in the Guelphic triumph.

Portovenere does not need any introduction: for the beauty of its territory, the city has been included, along with the Cinque Terre, as a World Heritage Site by UNESCO. In the time of interest there had been the unification within a single set of walls of the Borgo Vecchio and Borgo Nuovo. and the harbor was under the rule of Genoa.

The ancient statutes of Portovenere were published by Emilio Pandiani more than a century ago, thanks to the scrutiny of a valuable manuscript in a private library 3. The editor not only described and professionally transcribed the manuscript, but also tracked its passage among the private collections of several noble families of Liguria.

Actually it is not a single municipal statute, but three collections of laws which present themselves as corresponding to the stages before their meeting in a single body of statutory laws. Pandiani notes that this statute is of great interest for its original character: while many statutes, mostly from later periods, present themselves as the result of a common fixed model, with only slight variations from one case to another, this specimen has its own characteristics that demonstrate the direct creation of choices effectuated by the local population in all the various subjects independently.

Also based on my personal experience arising from the reading of many similar statutes, I can confirm that this statute presents itself
__________
3 E. Pandiani (ed.), Gli statuti di Portovenere, anno 1370. Genoa 1901.

4
differently from the usual case from its very beginning. The headings begin after the statement In nomine domini nostri Jesu Christi Anno MCCCLXX indicione VIII die VII Madii; The first heading is De non blasphemando, the second De non ludendo ad taxillos nec ad cartas, the third De non tenendo ludum in domo sua. A communal statute never begins that way, at least it would not do in the Florence area I know best; It could possibly be a mayor’s statute or a reform to be introduced in the text of a previous municipal statute.

Of course, the hardest thing to accept is the date, but there are also elements that make the full story most indigestible. Playing cards do not appear with the term of naibi that is normally there, but we could concede that we are far enough away from Florence to accept the use of the other term. The most delicate point is that while for the first time it will allow card playing, it would already document at the same time one of the games done with the cards, the ludus rectus, which we find more often with its common name of diritta, similarly also permitted, usually, in the Florentine Republic, but of course in later times.

So if this text could actually have been written in 1370 it would be concurrently the first witness for cards in Europe and also for the information that there were already more card games, including one that became traditional, diritta, which could then be assimilated with a few other games, not of cards, deemed worthy of being excluded from the prohibitions. At this point there seems to me necessary an act of faith, or credulity, and personally I do not accept it, ready to "reconsider" only if faced with confirmation arising from other documents, however, secure ones.

Emperor Charles IV, from which I suspect, that he distributed playing cards in Europe during his journeys, was in Lucca in 1368/69 during his Italian journey.
Potentially the young prince Fibbia (then 8-9 years old) or his family might have learned about playing cards at this opportunity.

************

Andrea Vitali confirmed, that the Tarocchino deck included a card with Fibbia heraldry.

Meister Ingold in 1432 claimed to have read in an old book, that playing cards came to Germany in the year 1300.

It is not believed in playing card history, that this statement is true. Meister Ingold is only about 80-100 years later than 1300, assuming, that he might have been born c. 1380. It is not believed in spite of the condition, that there are other claims of an older date than the generally accepted "c. 1370". These claims are also considered as "somehow wrong".

The author of the picture with the short prince Fibbia story lived a much longer time later than prince Fibbia. His report has a definite error in his text about "Tarocchino". Further the author is easily under suspicion to write something "too positive" about the ancestor prince Fibbia ... the whole matter might be something, which a few gamblers invented at an evening with cards and some vine and much fun about a recent funny idea.

Meister Ingold had no recognizable reason to lie about his "old book", but one never knows.

I count 3 points, in which the story of Ingold appears more reliable than the story of prince Fibbia. Both existed, definitely, in this point it's a remis. But the story of Meister Ingold is ALSO not believed ... somehow with good reasons.

Personally I believe, that there might be something true about Meister Ingold's statement. Indeed I think also, that there might be also something true about prince Fibbia.
Prince Fibbia (or his family) came from Lucca originally, and the later emperor Charles IV was in Lucca as a young man and also in his time as emperor. Lucca had special relations to German emperors since old times. Prince Fibbia might have brought "some interesting card playing ideas" to Bologna ... this makes sense, if the notes of F.L. Hübsch in 1849 are correct, who had the opinion, that playing cards in Bohemia (home place of Charles IV) were very early (c. 1340).

Further we have, that the later Lucca had a curious way to play with 69 cards, from which 13 were like Minchiate "special cards". Further there are some considerations to the Sola-Busca concept. And there are observations to the Rosenwald and to the 5x14-theory, which make it plausible, that Lucca had (possibly) a very special role in the distribution of card games in Italy.

In this context Prince Fibbia is interesting.

This is interesting, but as far I can see it, this is ignored cause of ignorance ... :-)

Huck and Mikeh
I had not paid attention that a special thread had been opened by Huck about Prince Fibbia.
Thank you for doing so.
I have read your observations as well as Mikeh's.
I understand your positions.
Nevertheless, I consider the topic open and I see here only one point of view given : your's.

Vitali reasons logically. He does not consider as you do a mistake that the painting speaks of Tarocchini.

The hypotheses are two: either you did not read well what Vitali wrote, or it is a fail in logic in dismissing the logical hypothesis he makes..
I believe that the right position would be to declare the topic open with two points of views.
That's Mikeh's position if I understood him well.

The great Italian historian Carlo Ginzburg (considered among the highest in the world together with Cardini, having inter alia taught at the Scuola Normale of Pisa, then at the Warburg Institute in London; Modern History at the University of Bologna and then in Harvard University, Yale and Princeton and University of California, Los Angeles) says that, when in the absence of documents, a logical reasoning is so logic that it can not be contradicted by the logic, then that reasoning is revealing of truth. This observation is one of the principles of historiography.
Medievists historians accept this way of thinking. I do also.

So I asked Andrea to give me his point of view also. He did so in a private mail.

"About Prince as inventor of the Triumphs, let's summarize what we know so far:
in the sixteenth century no one knew exactly when the tarot cards had been invented, and the same applies to their inventor, so that the authors of the time advance all conflicting hypotheses.
The same applies to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
Court De Gebelin, makes them of Egyptian origin based on the historic error regarding Hermes (No one had considered that Isaac Casaubon had said, but only the academics).
Dummett writes that in the middle of the seventeenth century, after a hundred years since the creation of Tarocchino, the habitants of Bologna thought that the original form of the game were the Tarocchini and not tarot. A natural assessment for that time.
So when we read in the paint of the inventor Tarocchini know the reason for failure.
Dummett, Depaulis and Decker write that the ìnvention of the Triumphs is to be placed towards the 14210 /1425.
For historians of the Middle Ages it is certain that to know the origin of a situation we must go back to 20/25 years ago. The example of the glasses is only one example among thousands.
First document: Anghiari 1440.
I think it is not due to chance that Dummett, Depaulis and Decker have evaluated that date of origin.
Because in those dates Prince was in Bologna, it is clear that the writings in the paint derived from a reading of a document which asserted.
Even a child would understand this reasoning."

About Prince Fibbia and the invention of Triumphs hypothesis of Vitali.

Andrea had written :

"The person who commissioned it didn’t know the precise form of the game when the tarot was created, because it was unknown to those who wrote about it after the XVIth century. On the picture it is written that Francesco Fibbia was the inventor of Tarocchini, but we know that this represents a XVIth century variation of the game of tarot, previously existent in Bologna since the XVth century, when it had the name of Triumphs. All this means is that the author of the inscription, pointing to someone living between the XIVth and the XVth century as the inventor of Tarocchini, did not know the correct form of the game at the time of its creation, considering Tarocchini as the original form and not a later variant. The fact that the Bolognese had forgotten the word “Tarocchi” and its game of 78 cards is not surprising. On this point, Michael Dummett writes: "Although still in existence in 1588, the old form and complete pack had been completely forgotten by the mid-seventeenth century, although the name Tarocchino persisted" (11). "

Comments paraphrasing Vitali:
in the sixteenth century no one knew exactly when the tarot cards had been invented, and the same applies to their inventor
in the middle of the seventeenth century, after a hundred years since the creation of Tarocchino, the habitants of Bologna thought that the original form of the game were the Tarocchini and not tarot. A natural assessment for that time.
So when we read in the paint of the inventor Tarocchini- we know the reason for failure.

Andrea also wrote :
"The dates indicated on the picture are very near to those hypothesized for the time of the birth of the game of Triumphs, and this could not surprise us more. As the oldest known documents about the game of triumphs date back to 1440 (Florence) and 1442 (Estense Court), by historical assumption regarding the practice of use [practica d’uso], the game must date back to at least twenty/twenty-five years earlier, a period which matches with the Prince’s presence in Bologna."

Comments paraphrasing Vitali :
Considering 1440 Anghiari as the date for the birth of Triumphs
Considering that for historians of the Middle Ages it is almost certain that to know the origin of a situation we must go back to 20/25 years ago, we have a dating circa 1410-1425.
This may well be why Dummett, Depaulis and Decker have evaluated that date of origin.
"Agreeing with the writer on the date of invention of the game are three leading experts: R. Decker, T. Depaulis and M. Dummett. In the book A wicked pack of cards: The origin of the Occult Tarot they write: "A lower bound for the date of the invention is harder to determine. It probably occurred around 1425; the earliest date with any claim to be plausible would be 1410".
in those dates Prince was in Bologna, it is plausible that the writings in the paint derived from a reading of a lost document which asserted.

Well, that's my way of understanding the hypothesis formulated by Andrea and I find it logically plausible. I do not think that Cardini, the best specialist of Medieval culture since Le Goff, would contradict me.If so, I welcome to stand corrected.

My conclusion : OPEN TOPIC

Nota bene :
Hurst appreciation
Some aspects of Moakley's understanding of Tarot have proven perfectly sound. Unlike most writers before and since, she approached Tarot as a card game from 15th-century Italy rather than an esoteric manifesto of mysterious origin and transmission. In 1980, Michael Dummett's comprehensive study of Tarot history, The Game of Tarot, confirmed and documented in great detail the correctness of those conclusions[20]. Likewise, the art-historical approach to understanding the subject matter on the cards has proven more productive than occult impositions. This approach included focusing on a specific, very early deck of identifiable provenance[nb 7][21], which enabled the identification of numerous specific Visconti and Sforza emblems on the cards.

Prince Fibbia
Prince Castracani Fibbia (1360-1419) with Tarot cards. The Queen of Batons bears the Fibbia arms.
A few conclusions she presented were mistaken. Perhaps most notably, Moakley discussed the account of Count Leopoldo Cicognara concerning 1) Antonio de Cicognara having painted Tarot cards for Cardinal Asciano Maria Sforza (son of Francesco Sforza and Bianca Maria Visconti) in 1484 and 2) a painting of Prince Francesco Antelminelli Castracani Fibbia, with an inscription crediting him with the invention of Tarot and discussing specific heraldry on two cards of the Bolognese standard pattern deck[22]. On the basis of earlier researchers she dismissed both of these accounts, noting in the case of the latter that Robert "Steele could find no evidence that such a painting had ever existed, or that cards with these two devices had been made." Subsequent research has left the significance of the first passage of Cicognara's account in dispute. Among the possibilities, at one extreme Leopoldo's story may simply be spurious. At the other extreme, his ancestor Antonio may actually have repaired the very deck Moakley studied, including the addition of six replacement cards. However, the second passage has been confirmed. The painting exists, with the inscription, and Bolognese cards did bear the images described[23]. Fortunately none of her other conclusions depended upon these."
Both accounts are in dispute as well as the review of Hurst ...

Moakley could only rely on earlier researchers and one of her principal sources about Prince Fibbia , Robert Steele account of Prince Fibbia, was warranted
As for Hurst review, as Mikeh noted, it is not only that the painting exists but Prince Fibbia himself also at the precise dating given 1419.
"About Prince Fibbia, it is not only that the painting exists, as well as the cards with his insignia, but also Prince Fibbia himself, dying in precisely the year said in the inscription, 1419. T"

PS I have forwarded this post to Vitali about my understanding of his point of view about Prince Fibbia.
I hope that I did not misinterpret his thinking ... If so, again, I welcome to stand corrected.

I don't think, that the Prince Fibbia note has a higher probability to be true that Master Ingold's statement. Master Ingold's statement isn't trusted (with good reasons), so it's naturally, that the prince Fibbia story is also doubted in its value.

Something like this ...

Dummett, Depaulis and Decker write that the ìnvention of the Triumphs is to be placed towards the 14210 /1425.
For historians of the Middle Ages it is certain that to know the origin of a situation we must go back to 20/25 years ago. The example of the glasses is only one example among thousands.
First document: Anghiari 1440.
I think it is not due to chance that Dummett, Depaulis and Decker have evaluated that date of origin.
Because in those dates Prince was in Bologna, it is clear that the writings in the paint derived from a reading of a document which asserted.
Even a child would understand this reasoning.

"
... doesn't count much, even if children believes that.

"Germini" was present in the documents end of the 1530s, now we are in 1505 (and still we don't know, if this is the begin). That's not 20/25 years.
"Minchiate" likely once was present with Berni c. 1526, now we are at 1466 (and we still don't know, where the begin is). That's not 20/25 years
"Trionfi" had once a "1442" and now has a "1440". That's also not 20/25 years.

Each case is different. Research can only keep to that, what one definitely knows. Results depend on the intensity of research. We cannot say, that we have enough info about playing card production before to exclude the existence of Trionfi decks before 1440, although Franco Pratesi had spend a lot of energy with a lot of successes and improvements in the recent past.

One point is clear: if no real old playing cards appear, one can only persecute the word "Trionfi" or "ludus triumphorum" or similar. If this name was invented once for an illustrated type of game, we have a chance to find the begin of the use of the name (Trionfi, ludus triumphorum, etc.), but not determine the age of the type of the decks.

With the Michelino deck we have with probably 60 cards and some similarity to later Trionfi decks a clear description. It should have been made before 1425, it has similarity to the Trionfi decks, but it has also clear differences to later Tarot decks.

In the description of John of Rheinfelden (1377) we've another description of a luxury deck, also 60 cards, with some similarity to the Michelino deck.
In 1387 we've from Mantova another luxury deck description. We read nothing about special cards, but this doesn't mean, that it didn't include some predefined trump cards. We simply don't know. We've long years between 1377 and 1440 and there was opportunity for many curious decks, which simply aren't reported to us by documents.

Some fiction about a rule of 20/25 years somehow is only idle talking, a waste of time. DDD had made their statement in 1996, that's 20 years ago. There was lot progress since then.

We've the feature, that deck types could change their name, one example is Trionfi decks (15th century) and Tarochi decks (1505). Something similar might have happened around 1440. Then we would know something about the name invention, but nothing about the earlier decks.

We've made some researches about the popularity of Petrarca in Florence (first local biographies 1436 and c. 1440) and about Petrarca's illustrated Trionfi editions (first noted 1441) and about the Florentine favor for triumphal celebrations, which made a decisive jump in the year 1439, and about a cassone fashion in Florence with Petrarca motifs in the 1440s
There are - cause of this - good reasons to assume that the name "Trionfi cards" or "ludus triumphorum"also was invented then, which naturally doesn't mean, that the related type of decks was invented also then. Perhaps the birth of a new terminus "ludus triumphorum" and a modification of the trump motifs went together, but we don't know this for sure. At least, it would be plausible, when the Tarot cards would have contained Petrarca motifs. This might have been indeed so, see ... viewtopic.php?f=11&t=345&start=280#p17682

Thanks for your answer. You rely on documents. Until new data is found, you'll be unconvinced, that's sure.
I have exposed the logic of Vitali's take.That was important for me.

Finally I don' t see much evolution since Ross's dismiss of Vitali's theory in 2010.viewtopic.php?f=12&t=334&start=160#p5567
Caldwell had written :
"For Vitali the important thing here, unstated, is the Bolognese legend (perhaps not really that widespread) that Francesco Fibbia "invented the game of Tarocchini" - the same legend says he died in 1419, meaning he invented it before then. Then he relies on the guessing method of "a few decades" before the first notice of something, and finds the two compatible"

Well, to state short, I'm not sure at all it is a "legend" !

(Thinking aloud : I wonder if Ross still maintains that it is a "legend" that Prince Fibbia died in 1419...)

I nevertheless also now believe I have said enough on this topic - arguing further on appears useless.

"Germini" was present in the documents end of the 1530s, now we are in 1505 (and still we don't know, if this is the begin). That's not 20/25 years.
"Minchiate" likely once was present with Berni c. 1526, now we are at 1466 (and we still don't know, where the begin is). That's not 20/25 years
"Trionfi" had once a "1442" and now has a "1440". That's also not 20/25 years.

It is therefore obvious, given that the first documents on Triumphs belong to the early fifteenth century, we must look for their creation 20/25 years or more earlier.

Your examples, Huck, merely confirm what Vitali is saying.

It could also be less than 20. This is a rule of thumb. Particular conditions affect the estimate, to be sure, most for example other documents that are also later, or which describe something different but not that different, or something in the document not well known that can be verified by other means (in this case the death date, as well as his precise name). Vitali discusses these and other considerations immediately following (well, after one paragraph citing an authority).

I have a copy of the 2013 booklet of Andrea's you refer to. It is merely a selection for popular consumption from various of Andrea's essays, including especially "Il Principe" (the prince). Andrea assured me that there was no new information or arguments there not already published online. I have not examined the part about Fibbia word for word but it certainly does not seem to add anything we don't already know.

Something was (possibly) done by Prince Fibbia, something, which made it possible, that Fibbia family heraldry appeared on court cards of the Tarocchino. One cannot assume, that this was done recently in 17th century, otherwise Bolognese people would have contradicted.
Fibbia came from the region of Lucca, Lucca was visited by German emperors, especially by emperor Charles IV (around 1333, 1354/55, 1368/69).
There are various arguments, that an existence of playing cards in Bohemia might have happened before it appeared at other places. Charles might have known playing cards even already in 1333, although the later visits are more probable, naturally. Lucca nobility might have learned about their existence and also about playing card rules. Prince Fibbia might have imported knowledge about playing card production and playing card rules to Bologna. Whatever this was (if there was something), it's very plausible, that it wasn't called Tarocchino in Prince Fibbia's life time.

There must have been many persons, who somehow participated in the distribution of "knowledge about playing cards" from cities to other cities, otherwise the game with cards wouldn't have spread. The story of Prince Fibbia survived, notice about other persons' activities is mostly lost, that's the difference.

From Lucca we have a strange Tarocchi game version with 13 special cards only. That's interesting, especially cause decks with 69 cards might be related to the 5x14-theory (70 cards) or to the development of the Rosenwald Tarocchi/Minchiate (as discussed, possibly also 69 cards in specific versions). Also it might have been influenced the strange iconography of the Sola-Busca Tarocchi (as discussed).

Cause of these specific Lucca phenomena the Prince Fibbia story is interesting. Without these specific additions there would be not much, what the Prince Fibbia story could tell us.

Could you give a more precise reference for Lucca and its 13 triumph game? Your link gave 103 references; the first few were not helpful. I have forgotten the details. Offhand, it seems to me that Prince Fibbia is of interest even without the Lucca speculation.